Great essay Freya! "We need moral direction. Not just arbitrary boundaries to avoid being hurt, but something to live by." It is utterly refeshing (and heartening) to read lines such as these by a young author.
G.K. Chesterton adds another layer to the points you raise:
“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”
That quote is spot on. The biggest discovery of my adult life has been that I wish I’d committed sooner: to children, to marriage (I married young but was such a shitty cringe feminist mouthpiece it’s a wonder my husband put up with my condescension - bless his heart), to my role and the chief provider of nourishment and nurturance to my family.
I always give that advice back to people. Don’t be afraid to commit, put down roots and grow up. This new fangled noncommittal BS is making people miserable. We are designed to live lives that feel meaningful.
Yes, and it’s so refreshing to see someone emphasize the need for moral direction, especially when it's about living by something meaningful rather than just avoiding harm. Modern freedom often stems from fear of responsibility rather than boldness. Also, a moral compass isn't just about limits; it’s about guiding us toward something greater. I recently wrote a poem similar to that theme but it's on setting Boundaries: https://solhn.substack.com/p/boundaries-a-poem
I posted 9 essays on substack about the need for a moral compass in society. Politics is downstream of culture, and culture shapes society. Politics sets boundaries. Moral direction governs culture.
Our political system is faltering. We see it all around us: division, dysfunction, toxicity, etc. The political fallout of our current moment is manifesting the point of this essay: “we need moral direction.”
Chesterton was not content to pontificate about morals. He and others suggested that we must redo our economic system as well, in order to avoid both fascism and chaos. Fascism also has a moral compass, and many people will be attracted to it when chaos gets too strong, as it has now, and in the 1930s.
This is brilliant. Spot on. So many of the young people you're talking about would insist they do have morals and values because they speak the "right opinions" on key political and cultural issues and they judge the morality of others based on the same. Morality then becomes not a compass to help guide you or about what you do or don't do but instead just a sign in your life's front yard that signals but does nothing else.
Yard signs were a thing in USA. “In this house we believe…”, Ukraine flag, VACCINED, or “essential worker (nurse) lives here.” Did you have these in the UK too?
Exactly, plus what do you do when the cultural tides shift? I live in a conservative area, and was shocked to see how the same people who waxed poetic about community values and being willing to take a bullet for our country crumbled the second they were asked to wear a piece of cloth on their face to protect grandmas at the grocery store. They were all about protecting the community until a real threat appeared.
That's because any one who was actually thinking knows that masks don't do anything. They're not protecting grandma even though you really really want them to.
So surgeons, doctors, nurses should not wear masks when performing their jobs? Masks do nothing? Your medical degree is from where and please refer to research you rely on?
Because it was politicized these results were attempted to be squashed. The editorial team had to walk back their political games because of how unprofessional it makes them look.
Masks make people feel better. They are a security blanket and signal to others that "they care" while actually doing NOTHING.
The moment you understand that masking never worked and that they KNEW it didn’t work, you unlock a paradigm shift that is really freaking uncomfortable.
If you want more info to Google, there was a Cochrane review - a high quality, independent body that is the gold standard of medical lit reviews - that also concluded masks are not effective.
Masks can protect the surgeon from blood splatter, so there's that. That's pretty obvious without needing a medical degree and --full disclosure--I don't have one! At the same time, it's not healthy to breathe one's own exhalation for a long time. We exhale partly as a way to discharge from the body, like blowing our nose, sweating, peeing, etc. is my understanding.
That's because those conservatives only care about the appearance of "values."
An example, in my hometown, they decided to build a huge cross that greets/haunts you upon entering the city. There are other towns that have done the same, and there's this odd competition of who can have the biggest cross (something something idolatry something something). It was brought up that one of the major stores is being used as a sort of homeless shelter, and how the money/resources/energy being used on this useless cross could be used for something more beneficial (and obviously creating a homeless shelter is going to use more of this). "Christian values" would say the homeless shelter is more important than the cross, yet these people said that if others wanted to build a homeless shelter, they could do it on their own done, and how the homeless people are where they are because of their own failing.
Freedom is only so good as one is capable of taking responsibility. Most people do not want responsibility. We saw this with the response to Covid. And those who value freedom mostly waste it: what most people seek is comfort & avoid pain. Ultimately animals are controlled by fear.
Justice is everything being in its proper place. There is no reason to give a child more freedom than it deserves. IMO people should earn their liberty in some sense. Too much entitlement at the expense of duty & honor, much less mere dignity.
I would make being fat or poorly dressed in public illegal.
Allow honor fighting and forced watching by friends on social media.
Public hangings of pedophiles, rapists, & criminals. The harmed family must perform the execution.
Ban poison from our environment.
Beautiful smart people should be expected to have the most children & ugly dumb people only one child. No one below 100 IQ should reproduce.
Politicians should cage fight for who gets to rule.
Only men who serve in the military should be permitted to vote & own firearms & expected to serve in a local militia, not only by choice.
Think bigly about what can be achieved. We cannot inherit the stars and feed the world.
There are a lot of people who claim to espouse Christian values who don’t really walk the walk. Same with all other religions/ideologies - hypocrisy is part of the human condition. Christian values are good, though.
Because opposing all that nonsense is the real truth. More grandmas died from loneliness and neglect than from the bug-a-boo fake virus. Maybe some people relished the excuse to not visit Grandma any more.
You’ve brought up an interesting view on morality today--Do you think this shift toward signalling over action is reversible, or has it become too ingrained in our culture?
This was profound! I truly think a lot of the troubled people experience today is that we’re a less religious society. Even people who weren’t Christian generally followed Christian values, at least in the US. But now society has shifted so much and suddenly it’s bad to be religious or talk about God, but that’s exactly why people struggle with anxiety, meaninglessness, dissatisfaction and boredom. People look to their phones or political tribes to find fulfillment and direction when they need to look inside themselves and ask: what do I value? What do I find meaningful? How can I build a life of virtue? But truthfully the powers that be like people being so malleable because they’re more profitable and easier to control. It’s up to all of us to find a center of gravity, something to hold onto.
Church attendance is down. Politics is up. What are the 2 things you shouldn't talk about over dinner? Church and politics. I'd take a bit more church conversation about now.
Never understood that saying—I spoke about politics with my family over dinner and otherwise for probably as long as I could walk, initiated obviously by the adults. Religion has always been enjoyable conversation, too. On neither subject does everyone agree, and we enjoy talking about them anyway.
I think most people only see such subjects as difficult to talk about because they've avoided talking about them all their life, and are surrounded by other people who avoid talking about them. They are raised conflict and disagreement averse surrounded by other people and a society that are both, too, and that are actively hostile to those who disagree with them or even just who enjoy thinking and talking about the "difficult" subjects.
Church and politics? In other words, I'll take both, please. Throw in some talk of culture and literature to go with it. What do others even talk about at dinner?
LIBERTARIANS adhere to morality based on the NATURAL RIGHTS priciples - the recognition that human beings have the rights to “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.”
Not happiness,no one can have a right to such an arbitrary thing,but the right to pursue it and that seems odd to be. What if it makes me happy to own six houses and charge my tenants exorbitant rent so they can barely eat on pain of eviction if they can't pay. That might make me happy so my pursuit would consist of earning the money to buy the houses and I might earn it quicker working for the mob than in a simple service job.The pursuit of happiness. A weird and ungodly concept in itself.
I don’t see any evidence to nature giving anyone these rights. The only right of nature is survival of the fittest!
Libertarians are inventing an ideology based on what they value, and then post hoc justifying their bias by calling it “natural rights” but nothing natural about it any more than communism is natural.
These rights only exist to the degree you’re able to impose them. Nothing is given to you. Property is that which you can defend with power. Anything to the contrary is just a bullshit story you tell yourself to justify your power or lack thereof.
The Concept of Natural Rights has been recognized by the US Supreme Court since , at least, 1875.
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore have you noticed how few countries “allow” civilian gun ownership? Where are their natural rights? Mexico doesn’t allow firearm ownership but the cartels don’t care. The cartels have the will & the means to defy the state. They are sovereign in that sense.
So what you’re just making my point. Alcohol was specially banned constitutional amendment and then repealed.
I’d the 2A tomorrow was repealed all president is irrelevant. They are just “interpreting the law” & if Democrats appoint a couple more judges they’ll interpret the law their way.
You don’t have a “right” to arm yourself. In reality you only have will & the means, the rest is appeal to authority and law abiding rule following. I only respect the law to the degree it works for me & what I can get away with.
Basically we threw out Christianity (Catholic or Protestant traditions) and replaced it with relativism and therapy-speak. Makes sense why young people in the West are really struggling to make moral decisions.
I would argue that there are similarities between the problems Freya identifies and Protestant "traditions". This individualist, personal standards motif comes out of the sola
The Pope is washing the feet of “migrants” and the Vatican is pushing to flood Western countries with invaders for “reasons”… you think it’s to cover up their 1000 year ongoing cult of pedophilia? Christianity is just communism 1.0. “We’re all equal in the eyes of god”. Who is “we”?
How about “Our people alone descend from the Gods and outsiders are unsuitable and inferior thus do not belong here. It is we who will colonize the stars, that is our manifest destiny & anyone in our way will be crushed.” -A way better morality
I really enjoyed this. I love some of the observations you made. See, what I find interesting is that I actually do think your friends should tell you how to behave. Not judge you or dictate your actions, but rather check you. I think a lot of people have gotten really comfortable with the idea that they can be and do whatever they want around their people and that friends are "toxic" for pointing out your missteps.
But your friends, more than any others, are people you really get to choose, and I think a lot of what we see happen today is that because people are afraid to be brutally honest with themselves, it becomes near impossible to be held accountable by the people that love them most. There is a lot of merit in being told "Bro, I love you, but you've been acting like an ass lately and it's not okay". That kind of circle keeps the balances in check, the standards high and it especially means more because it is feedback from people who love you and know what yout best looks lime (which is another thing, love between friends should be unmitigated and unbiased, but that's a whole different post lol.).
I think these traits help contribute to developing a lot of faith in life because, to your point, it builds moral character. That doesn't have to be by religious standards, but I think society is going through a huge crisis of faith that it is trying to plug through surface "spiritual" practices that do not have the philosophical and moral depths that any practice is supposed to have. True faith is what allows you to trust in yourself during challenges and especially helps you to feel more decisive among those myriad choices life throws at you. Faith steadies the roots.
Yes,in traditional old villages people were kept in line by the never ending continual gossip of the neighbours. If it got oppressive you fled to a city where you starved or turned to crime and got hanged! But this never ending vigilance kept life at a tolerable level for everyone with a.few special occasions when people could let off steam. Christmas with feasting and the social order reversed and May Day Eve when all the young men and women of the village had to go into the woods and cut boughs of green leaves and hawthorn blossom to celebrate May Day with. I mean it takes all night to find those just right branches. All the oldsters knew what the young ones was probably doing in the woods on May Day night as they'd done it themselves back in their day but it wasnt an allowed everyday thing.
I guess I would argue that capitalism has bankrupted the moral direction of the United States. So little wonder that an entire generation raised under late-state capitalism and targeted endlessly as consumers has little moral direction.
Look at the phenomenon of boycotting a company rather than protesting the government for a policy change or greater regulation (there will eventually be a vast body of regulation for new media). We now look to companies, not government, to reflect our morals. But companies are economic units. They are driven by a profit incentive, not a moral one.
So we outsource our morals to the market, and wonder why we have no direction as a culture/people. We tell everyone to get MBAs and avoid the humanities. We, as a society, insist that the individual assume burdens once carried by the state, then wonder why everyone is stressed and anxious and struggling to get through life.
Too much individualism thanks to too much capitalism. Democracy is where morality lies, and that has eroded greatly over the past 50 years or so. Capitalism has turned women into economic units at the expense of the family (I’m not arguing that women shouldn’t work, but that middle class families should be able to live on a single full-time income in the world’s largest economy by far). It’s turned individuals into consumers and little mini-states at the expense of their well-being (turning children into consumers is especially disturbing!). Globalization has hollowed out culture and what remains is just the ashes of meaning, purpose, morality, empathy, and so on.
Both capitalism and democratic republics are good systems but they really depend on the morality of the individuals to function best. Morality used to be taught within families and intermediating institutions (churches, Boy Scouts, schools, etc.) it was within the framework of local communities and organizations that children grew to be civilized in the society at large. I think what Freya is suggesting is that such institutions—the family being the most basic—have abdicated this responsibility.
I agree with many of your points. But capitalism is not the problem—greedy, corrupt people are. Capitalism has done more to lift the world out of poverty than any other system. Look up the graphs of historian Johan Norberg. The information they contain is quite stunning.
Capitalism is the ONLY MORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind."
Sorry, the US has a market economy and pro-corporatist governance. This is a given in any policy circles, no matter what lofty hairs Ayn Rand split at one point.
The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, was clear that it was by pursuing their own self-interests that individuals would naturally benefit each other. This was the value that he attributed to the market — “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” That is the core economic principle of the free market.
Capitalism is about the individual and self-interest. Democracy is about the community and shared interest/social justice. We can show this empirically, as Benjamin Friedman did in his “Moral Consequences of Economic Growth” wherein he ties socially progressive policies to periods of economic expansion around the globe, and socially regressive policies to periods of retraction.
The US has been in a protracted period of late stage capitalism since at least the 1990s, (depending on how you define the term), but most obviously when it began to project this stage globally via globalization.
The same folks who tell us that they don’t know what a woman is and that Tampons MUST be placed in boys bathrooms , are telling us that there is NO DIFFERENCE between CAPITALISM and FASCISM .
On that note, we may increasingly move into a phase of state led capitalism, globally. But capitalism most certainly did not die at the beginning of the twentieth century.
."The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."
Capitalism means NO GOVERNMENT - NO COMPULSIONS EXIST .
lais·sez-faire
/ˌlesāˈfer/
Economics
abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.
"laissez-faire capitalism"
-- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"
In his book, The Abolition of Man, Lewis was prophetic in pointing out that relativism—the idea that there are no absolute truths—would lead to the decay of morality and a lack of virtue within society. Without a belief in and the teaching of universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with intelligent men who behave like animals or as Lewis puts it, “Men without Chests.”
That’s a powerful insight from Lewis on the consequences of relativism. Do you think there’s a way to reintroduce universal moral laws in a society that increasingly leans toward individualism and subjective truths, if ever?
However difficult it is for it to change, this society won't last forever, and instead like all societies hitherto will suffer dissolution. I think this society is unchangeable in that regard, and will likely become more fractured, subjective, and detached from reality.
If you look to the ancient literature, whether it is to these cycles of societal life-and-death in the Eddas, or to Plato's time of similar moral decay, or if you look to more modern authors who first observed the biological nature of senescence of societies (e.g Spengler), or actually just at nature itself, death is a part of life and there is always a seed that grows from the ruins and decay.
The moral values that revive today will blossom into the society that replaces this one, likely helping to form the parallel institutions that will replace this one's own as well. History is cyclical, good rises from good and evil from evil. So, it doesn't really matter if this society can be changed, universal moral laws lead somewhere positive regardless.
Such a great question! I wish I knew. But I can speak from the perspective of a Christian. The changes we speak of come from the inside. A changed heart. A reorientation of love, affection, devotion, meaning, and purpose. And this comes from a relationship with our Creator. While every other religion is concerned with following a set of rules, Christianity starts with a relationship and then our lives (should!) begin to be a reflection of love and gratitude. We love because he first loved us. Conversion cannot come about by the sword, legislation, or coercion. It is truly something supernatural.
Even though I don’t believe America is or ever was a “Christian nation,” I do think we experienced benefits from Christian influence. I haven’t read this yet, but I know Tom Holland’s book “Dominion” discusses how the values of Western civilization are rooted in Christianity (and he’s not a Christian). I tend to think this influence can’t be recovered.
Kimberly, I really appreciate your perspective on how true change starts from within, through a reoriented heart and relationship with the Creator. It’s fascinating how Christianity's influence on Western values, as you mentioned with Tom Holland's book, has left a deep imprint, even if many people today don't consciously recognize it.
I wonder if part of the challenge in reintroducing universal moral laws stems from our increasingly pluralistic society. With so many worldviews and belief systems, do you think it’s possible for a common moral foundation to emerge without being tied to a specific religious tradition? Can the shared values that shaped Western civilization still resonate in a way that feels inclusive to all?
I admire your curiosity and question asking. Most people, like me, mostly come on here to express our opinions! You’re so right that pluralism is an obstacle to a common moral foundation. I think we’re seeing this starting to play out in Europe. The US has built-in mechanisms for the flourishing of a pluralistic society, but even those are experiencing strains as threats to basic principles like free speech are becoming more common. Can we go back to the common values that shaped western civilization in the first place? I don’t know. I don’t think so.
Again, I have to put on my Christian hat here…it is the church’s job (and I mean the global church, not a specific denomination or building, but the body of believers) to be a light to those around them (have we done that well? Sometimes. But that’s a whole other topic!). We are to serve and love others wherever we find ourselves—in a pluralistic society, a hostile society, or a flourishing society. We are supposed to work for the good of the city in which we live, but we also have an eternal perspective, knowing that this life is brief. A lot of American Christians have too closely intertwined politics and faith. We’ve lived so long in a culturally Christian nation that we’ve forgotten what it’s like to live out our faith in a pluralistic society.
Your questions framed the topic from an angle I hadn’t much thought about, so thank you. What are your thoughts?
In expressing opinions, people steer further away from empathy. I seek to understand, not to judge. I appreciate our conversation thus far, and I have no more thoughts.
The difficulty is that if we do get to reintroduce the society we all know we want,well there is a personal price to pay and a lot of people will hurt a lot,but they'll be a hell of a lot more creative. And that's how life is.
We may never know what these absolute truths are. Just believing they exist is not enough and is counter productive if your virtues are actually vices. What happens when your compassion is really just cowardice? How would you know?
Virtues are relative in regard to circumstance. Sometimes being cruel & selfish are better virtues than being compassionate & generous.
One needs “first principles”, ideals, & goals not “absolute truth” or “morals”.
Beauty is the highest ideal. There is no greater accomplishment for a European woman than raising beautiful children. They need not ever adopt an African orphan. That is ugliness, that is sin.
I would reject any worldview that would call cruelty and selfishness better virtues than compassion and selflessness.
And whenever you call one set of virtues “better” than another, as you did, you are appealing to a higher, transcendent standard.
I’m a bit alarmed at your comment that a European woman adopting an African orphan is ugliness and sin. Furthermore, you are again appealing to a higher standard by calling something sin. I believe adoption to be noble. On what grounds do you say otherwise?
Oh, One other thing, any white woman adopting an African orphan & raising them trans, yea that’s an example of bad selfishness, in psychology we call it narcissistic personality disorder.
I used sin as a joke. If anything is a sin it’s treason against your own heritage & tribe. “Not my people not my problem” is the common sense standard by which I judge such a situation.
We live in a brainwashed culture where White women are being indoctrinated to socially signal their “moral goodness” by raising their child trans or adopting African children often doing both at the same time. You cannot save the world but you can help your own people. Everything is inverted.
Cruelty is necessary for fighting enemies that would rape and murder you & your children. It is necessary for punishment of criminal behavior & for the removal of parasitic types. Selfishness is necessary for taking one’s own side in life, to follow one’s dreams, and make something of themselves. We evolved these traits to help us survive, to thrive. It’s a known fact that greed can produce more benefit to others than charity. Of course you donate to charity because it makes you feel good & moral. Well, those feelings are selfish at some level, surprise! These taboo virtues are healthy adaptive instincts when applied appropriately. These virtues are necessary at certain times, other times they are not, realizing which instincts & virtues to embrace is an issue of maturity & wisdom. The “higher standard” is simply the most appropriate action. Slam on the breaks vs speed up, are two opposing actions that can both lead avoiding a car wreck. In this case avoiding the wreck is the higher standard, why avoid a wreck? Why tend to a crying baby if the sun will burn out in 5 billion years? Only a nihilist would worry about “transcendence” when acting on healthy instincts.
Most people are so confused by modern “morality” they are now letting RAPISTS and PEDOPHILES out of jail in the name of “compassion”, “justice”, & “equality”. They should be hung publicly to send a message to others who would dare act the same. Anyone not cruel enough to hang a child rapist is part of the problem.
If you’re looking for a highest virtue it’s the instinct for beauty. That is where all other virtues deviate, fundamentally.
Raise your own children to be beautiful. If you must adopt choose children that look like you so that they grow up identifying with their adoptive parents in a tribe that looks like them that shares their heritage, language, & general history. Help someone in your community someone who you know face to face.
If Africans are so “equal” to you then there are 1.5 billion of them who can adapt their nearest orphan. To think American White women should adopt African children, ripping them from their native lands is a kind of White Supremacy + human trafficking.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions as the saying goes. Truly good people know the difference between us and them.
Can I interject re your comment I agree that a healthy selfishness is a virtue and "compassion " can be and in fact is,weaponised now,and it's being used as a weapon to destroy us and by extension our society.
Another important reflection, Freya. It's coming into focus now. As L'Engle said, "just because we don't understand doesn't mean that the explanation doesn't exist."
Which morals to adopt? Is it enough to be rooted in a good ethical code, or will we still find ourselves adrift, searching for something more? In addition to L'Engle, Chesterton wrote eloquently on this topic. And CS Lewis. And Solzhenitsyn.
Very well said! We definitely seem to have lost some appreciation for values. I hope it's temporary. I've seen some signs in young people that give me hope. We had a couple generations or so that went nuts about "rights" and "feelings" and "happiness" and "expression" while ignoring the values that underpin all these things.
I joined therapy looking for that compass you talked about and just ended up more confused and anxious than I was before. I even started to feel ashamed for seeking a compass outside of myself. You shed light on the thing I have been feeling for a long time. Thank you for this piece.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience with therapy, Valerie. I think such an important thing to feel into when seeing any practitioner is if they are helping you remember that the answers lie within you, rather than acting like the “expert” on your life, or even if we ourselves go into therapy believing that the therapist should have the answers for us.
There are some really wonderful therapists and other practitioners doing really great work to support people back to themselves…there are also really awful practitioners who unknowingly (and knowingly) perpetuate unhealthy cycles of disconnection.
Virtue is not cool. Preaching, moralizing, etc., is a "downer," and all the attention algorithms know it.
But there are exceptions that suggest there's a way forward. I think about Jocko Willink, for example — i.e. "Discipline is freedom" and "extreme ownership." Willink's one person who points us to an alternative perspective, one that's not about shortcuts and silver bullets. Instead, Willink points to the importance of taking responsibility over your life.
And I, for one, think that's pretty cool. Responsibility starts with the self. You gotta take the reins of your life, take responsibility for your actions. Your health. Your wealth. Your family. All of this is hard work, and the rewards are far from instant.
But wow are those rewards worth it! I hope in my life that I make responsible choices. Personal responsibility is a boundary worth setting.
I don't disagree, but let me play the devil's advocate here.
If someone endorses responsibility, discipline, and ownership of one's action, does that also imply the substantive framework or endpoint of such commitments? Couldn't someone pledge responsibility to their own hedonic goals, or ownership over their own (constantly shifting) boundaries?
It seems there s a potential regress if the substance of the commitments remains implicit. I know Jocko Willink has a substantive commitment but does that lead to the algorithm rejecting him? (The TikTok algorithm described in the article, not the algorithm supporting JW's own popularity.)
It is the mother of all ironies that Jocko has branded himself as a representative of "extreme ownership". He made a career of being a slavish mercenary to the US government, committing uncountable, unthinkable atrocities from which his soul will never recover, on the flimsiest of moral pretexts. He is the extreme example of what a large, faceless, globalist entity can turn someone with a confused moral compass into. Feeling lost? Here's a gun and some guys and a bunch of cool toys. Go fight wars for bankers and lose your soul. What a chump.
If you want to push yourself then start a family. It is the most obvious thing that people are lacking in their lives, and it is the obvious outlet for the rampant anxiety which is so obviously caused by people having nothing meaningful to do with themselves except stare in the mirror. Yes, if you are bored, you will become anxious and feel like you're climbing the walls. You were *designed* to have more than enough energy to give to others, specifically to your children.
This was not a mystery to our ancestors. It is not something that merited walls of navel-gazing digital text to elucidate. Once you were old enough you carried the torch forward and created the next generation. Simple as. You work through your issues by having to become stable for an innocent being, a being who is utterly dependent on you for their survival. Yes, it is hard. Yes, you will struggle. Yes, your child will show you what you're made of,. That *is* the point. Nature designed child-rearing to bring out the best in you and make you a better, more *whole* person.
And if you're reading this and feeling triggered, rest assured that your ancestors are watching you from somewhere. What are you going to do, make them proud? Or make them feel like all their hard work was for nothing? The choice is 100%, without question, YOURS to either get right or to screw up.
Not going to defend Jocko for being the strong arm of the State through the military — something I am not advocating for. At a time where nihilism is everywhere, I get the appeal of belief that your country offers, but I think you point to a better place to focus responsibility:
Family, community, and building for the long-term future. The only caveat is that I think you need to find work you believe in — that work can be in many places, from your kids to your hobbies to how you get a paycheck. It's important (to me) to find ways to exert power over the world in a positive way, and I think doing that in your life as an adult is also a critical message that your kids receive.
Comes back to taking responsibility over your life, regardless of who is sending that message.
This is so good, Freya. As a therapist the amount of times I’ve asked my clients about their moral values-what guides them- and gotten blank stares back 👀. I haven’t been able to truly articulate the importance of moral values to support anxiety…thank you for giving me the words.
The elephant in the room is the question: which moral framework do we adopt? How can we have an objective moral law without an objective lawgiver?
CS Lewis has written eloquently about this in Mere Christianity:
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.”
I think Freya is admitting here, or at least alluding to, a Real Right or a Real Morality. But where does it come from and how do we know it? And what happens when we don’t follow it?
CS Lewis:
“When an individual states that one value system is better than another, or attempts to replace a particular value system with a better one, he assumes there is an objective standard of judgment. This objective standard of judgment, which is different from either value system, helps one conclude that one value system conforms more closely to the moral standard than another. Without some sort of objective measuring stick for value systems, there is no way to conclude that civilized morality, where humans treat one another with dignity and respect, is better than savage morality, where humans brutally murder others, even within their own tribe at times, for various reasons.
“…if there is no objective moral standard, then there is no sense in saying that any one value system has ever been morally good or morally bad, or morally superior or inferior to other value systems.”
I believe, and CS Lewis eventually argues, that in order for a moral framework to exist outside of ourselves, there needs to be a transcendent moral lawgiver. And what makes the most sense here is a transcendent god, and more specifically the Christian God. He provided the law but he also provided a way for forgiveness when we break the law.
“…if there is no objective moral standard, then there is no sense in saying that any one value system has ever been morally good or morally bad, or morally superior or inferior to other value systems.”
My morality is superior because it is mine, and that is sufficient.
Freya, thank you for your insightful reflections. As I read your essay, what came to me was a call to leadership. Having a moral compass is vital. And developing one's leadership to move toward the vision we hold that aligns with our morals is the "work." I believe personal leadership is the embodiment of our morals, boundaries, desires, visions, beliefs and the willingness to share that within our communities to guide others to step into their leadership. It's no longer something saved for those in positions of power. It's a requirement for all of us as we continue moving into a time of great unknown. Thank you for modeling this through your own journey.
I always tried to follow a moral code that my parents instilled in me which is to treat others as I wish them to treat me. I in turn passed on that moral view to my (now adult) daughters.
Of course, I would not do things I believed were wrong no matter who told me to and my daughters certainly behave that way, too, but the main thing about it is that it always considers the other person's point of view as more important than one's own.
Obviously, this does not go so far as accepting abuse! That gets thrown out at stage 1 : I do not want to be treated that way so I don't accept it from others.
It's not a perfect solution but it takes one a lot of the way, I think.
I know you say God is a ridiculous answer to our morality crisis, but your desperate words show it might be a good answer for you. Want something permanent? The Bible says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." While the world constantly change the definition of love, Jesus never will. While the world will tell you that honor and redemption comes from endless virtue signalling, The Bible says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Jesus doesn't demand our perfection, or the nihilism-disguised- as -strength that infects social media. He accepts us as we are--our mistakes, our tears, and our vulnerabilities. All that He asks of us is to quit relying on our own ability to find morality, and rely on His abilities instead. Please consider exploring the Bible itself, and not just what the secular world says about it. As you've said so perfectly in this piece, it's not working for us anyway.
But if you want a source that deals with the strong woman cult specifically, I would recommend The Heroine's Journey by Maureen Murdock. I used it for my senior thesis, and it offers us girls a much better way of embracing our feminine identity than the world does. Maureen even claims that our idea of emotionless strong women actually plays right into the patriarchy's hands--because it's demanding us to sacrifice our feminine strengths in order to be more like men. It's absolutely fantastic!
Read more of Ms. India’s writing and you get the sense that she’s actually already converted. She just doesn’t write about it since, as said in this essay, it makes you terminally uncool and laughed at, and for someone in the business of online writing/influencing for the nonreligious “tribe” that’s a problem.
But she’s all but saying “humans need religion” in almost all her writing over the last six months. Even when she explicitly disavows religion as the only path to morality, the disavowal is done very timidly and without much to back it up (need an externally-imposed moral code — without religion where does that moral code come from?). Plus, the pattern of her likes/restacks on SS reinforces my suspicion.
Great essay Freya! "We need moral direction. Not just arbitrary boundaries to avoid being hurt, but something to live by." It is utterly refeshing (and heartening) to read lines such as these by a young author.
G.K. Chesterton adds another layer to the points you raise:
“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”
That quote is spot on. The biggest discovery of my adult life has been that I wish I’d committed sooner: to children, to marriage (I married young but was such a shitty cringe feminist mouthpiece it’s a wonder my husband put up with my condescension - bless his heart), to my role and the chief provider of nourishment and nurturance to my family.
I always give that advice back to people. Don’t be afraid to commit, put down roots and grow up. This new fangled noncommittal BS is making people miserable. We are designed to live lives that feel meaningful.
Yes, and it’s so refreshing to see someone emphasize the need for moral direction, especially when it's about living by something meaningful rather than just avoiding harm. Modern freedom often stems from fear of responsibility rather than boldness. Also, a moral compass isn't just about limits; it’s about guiding us toward something greater. I recently wrote a poem similar to that theme but it's on setting Boundaries: https://solhn.substack.com/p/boundaries-a-poem
I posted 9 essays on substack about the need for a moral compass in society. Politics is downstream of culture, and culture shapes society. Politics sets boundaries. Moral direction governs culture.
Our political system is faltering. We see it all around us: division, dysfunction, toxicity, etc. The political fallout of our current moment is manifesting the point of this essay: “we need moral direction.”
My writings are here (essays 31 through 39): https://commonsensepapers.substack.com/p/the-common-sense-papers-part-v
Chesterton was not content to pontificate about morals. He and others suggested that we must redo our economic system as well, in order to avoid both fascism and chaos. Fascism also has a moral compass, and many people will be attracted to it when chaos gets too strong, as it has now, and in the 1930s.
This is brilliant. Spot on. So many of the young people you're talking about would insist they do have morals and values because they speak the "right opinions" on key political and cultural issues and they judge the morality of others based on the same. Morality then becomes not a compass to help guide you or about what you do or don't do but instead just a sign in your life's front yard that signals but does nothing else.
Wow, yes. “A sign in your life's front yard that signals but does nothing else” is a very good way of putting it
Virtue signaling is a stealthy self-delusion that "I am a person of moral character." But an all-to-easy mimetic trap so many fall into.
Yard signs were a thing in USA. “In this house we believe…”, Ukraine flag, VACCINED, or “essential worker (nurse) lives here.” Did you have these in the UK too?
🎯🎯
Exactly, plus what do you do when the cultural tides shift? I live in a conservative area, and was shocked to see how the same people who waxed poetic about community values and being willing to take a bullet for our country crumbled the second they were asked to wear a piece of cloth on their face to protect grandmas at the grocery store. They were all about protecting the community until a real threat appeared.
That's because any one who was actually thinking knows that masks don't do anything. They're not protecting grandma even though you really really want them to.
So surgeons, doctors, nurses should not wear masks when performing their jobs? Masks do nothing? Your medical degree is from where and please refer to research you rely on?
masked: 4.7% post op infection rate
unmasked: 3.5% post op infection rate
masking by surgeon increased infection risk in patients by 34% from unmasked baseline.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01658736
Masks help surgeons not get their patients blood and other fluids in their mouths or accidentally drool into an open wound.
Before 2020, all studies agreed that community mask wearing was not an effective mitigation measure for cold and flu.
They are not a harmless intervention. They have actual negative impact on the population. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/
A review of available literature demonstrates they have negligible impact: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full
Because it was politicized these results were attempted to be squashed. The editorial team had to walk back their political games because of how unprofessional it makes them look.
Masks make people feel better. They are a security blanket and signal to others that "they care" while actually doing NOTHING.
Evren brought receipts 👏👏👏
The moment you understand that masking never worked and that they KNEW it didn’t work, you unlock a paradigm shift that is really freaking uncomfortable.
If you want more info to Google, there was a Cochrane review - a high quality, independent body that is the gold standard of medical lit reviews - that also concluded masks are not effective.
Well researched, well said.
The question is will face masks protect us from the SARS-CoV2 virus?
But tis the SARS-CoV2 virus a thing , does it exist ?
When did SCIENTISTS purify and isolate the same?
Masks can protect the surgeon from blood splatter, so there's that. That's pretty obvious without needing a medical degree and --full disclosure--I don't have one! At the same time, it's not healthy to breathe one's own exhalation for a long time. We exhale partly as a way to discharge from the body, like blowing our nose, sweating, peeing, etc. is my understanding.
Stupid know nothing statement.
Great comeback. Anything better? Or just your feelings?
OoO!
That's because those conservatives only care about the appearance of "values."
An example, in my hometown, they decided to build a huge cross that greets/haunts you upon entering the city. There are other towns that have done the same, and there's this odd competition of who can have the biggest cross (something something idolatry something something). It was brought up that one of the major stores is being used as a sort of homeless shelter, and how the money/resources/energy being used on this useless cross could be used for something more beneficial (and obviously creating a homeless shelter is going to use more of this). "Christian values" would say the homeless shelter is more important than the cross, yet these people said that if others wanted to build a homeless shelter, they could do it on their own done, and how the homeless people are where they are because of their own failing.
They are also increasingly anti-freedom when it comes to how you are supposed to behave as a man or a woman.
Freedom is only so good as one is capable of taking responsibility. Most people do not want responsibility. We saw this with the response to Covid. And those who value freedom mostly waste it: what most people seek is comfort & avoid pain. Ultimately animals are controlled by fear.
Justice is everything being in its proper place. There is no reason to give a child more freedom than it deserves. IMO people should earn their liberty in some sense. Too much entitlement at the expense of duty & honor, much less mere dignity.
I would make being fat or poorly dressed in public illegal.
Allow honor fighting and forced watching by friends on social media.
Public hangings of pedophiles, rapists, & criminals. The harmed family must perform the execution.
Ban poison from our environment.
Beautiful smart people should be expected to have the most children & ugly dumb people only one child. No one below 100 IQ should reproduce.
Politicians should cage fight for who gets to rule.
Only men who serve in the military should be permitted to vote & own firearms & expected to serve in a local militia, not only by choice.
Think bigly about what can be achieved. We cannot inherit the stars and feed the world.
The most honorable act you could commit would be sudoku.
There are a lot of people who claim to espouse Christian values who don’t really walk the walk. Same with all other religions/ideologies - hypocrisy is part of the human condition. Christian values are good, though.
Because opposing all that nonsense is the real truth. More grandmas died from loneliness and neglect than from the bug-a-boo fake virus. Maybe some people relished the excuse to not visit Grandma any more.
>>>>>until a real threat appeared<<<<<
I don;t remember that point when a real threat appeared
A deep state HOAX - SCAM is NOT a real threat
You’ve brought up an interesting view on morality today--Do you think this shift toward signalling over action is reversible, or has it become too ingrained in our culture?
This was profound! I truly think a lot of the troubled people experience today is that we’re a less religious society. Even people who weren’t Christian generally followed Christian values, at least in the US. But now society has shifted so much and suddenly it’s bad to be religious or talk about God, but that’s exactly why people struggle with anxiety, meaninglessness, dissatisfaction and boredom. People look to their phones or political tribes to find fulfillment and direction when they need to look inside themselves and ask: what do I value? What do I find meaningful? How can I build a life of virtue? But truthfully the powers that be like people being so malleable because they’re more profitable and easier to control. It’s up to all of us to find a center of gravity, something to hold onto.
Church attendance is down. Politics is up. What are the 2 things you shouldn't talk about over dinner? Church and politics. I'd take a bit more church conversation about now.
Never understood that saying—I spoke about politics with my family over dinner and otherwise for probably as long as I could walk, initiated obviously by the adults. Religion has always been enjoyable conversation, too. On neither subject does everyone agree, and we enjoy talking about them anyway.
I think most people only see such subjects as difficult to talk about because they've avoided talking about them all their life, and are surrounded by other people who avoid talking about them. They are raised conflict and disagreement averse surrounded by other people and a society that are both, too, and that are actively hostile to those who disagree with them or even just who enjoy thinking and talking about the "difficult" subjects.
Church and politics? In other words, I'll take both, please. Throw in some talk of culture and literature to go with it. What do others even talk about at dinner?
LIBERTARIANS adhere to morality based on the NATURAL RIGHTS priciples - the recognition that human beings have the rights to “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.”
.
Not happiness,no one can have a right to such an arbitrary thing,but the right to pursue it and that seems odd to be. What if it makes me happy to own six houses and charge my tenants exorbitant rent so they can barely eat on pain of eviction if they can't pay. That might make me happy so my pursuit would consist of earning the money to buy the houses and I might earn it quicker working for the mob than in a simple service job.The pursuit of happiness. A weird and ungodly concept in itself.
Have you read the US Declaration of Independence ?
No. I'm British.
Are you sure you don't have a copy? I'm certain we gave a copy to King George III. LOL
SInce I know that SHITHEAD Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley is monitoring this encounter I want to respectfully say to him
FUCK YOU SON OF A BITCH , COME AND GET ME , YOU MISERABLE DINGLE BERRY .
Blimey , I feel better.
I don’t see any evidence to nature giving anyone these rights. The only right of nature is survival of the fittest!
Libertarians are inventing an ideology based on what they value, and then post hoc justifying their bias by calling it “natural rights” but nothing natural about it any more than communism is natural.
Really ?
So the rights to Life, Liberty ., Property and to Pursue Happiness are given to us by:
1- QueMala Cameleon
2- Tampon Tim
3- That’s Libertarian bullshit
4- I never heard of those rights
These rights only exist to the degree you’re able to impose them. Nothing is given to you. Property is that which you can defend with power. Anything to the contrary is just a bullshit story you tell yourself to justify your power or lack thereof.
The Concept of Natural Rights has been recognized by the US Supreme Court since , at least, 1875.
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/
.
Furthermore have you noticed how few countries “allow” civilian gun ownership? Where are their natural rights? Mexico doesn’t allow firearm ownership but the cartels don’t care. The cartels have the will & the means to defy the state. They are sovereign in that sense.
Sorry I cannot edit typos & auto correct errors within this thread, typing fast. Please forgive 🙏
So what you’re just making my point. Alcohol was specially banned constitutional amendment and then repealed.
I’d the 2A tomorrow was repealed all president is irrelevant. They are just “interpreting the law” & if Democrats appoint a couple more judges they’ll interpret the law their way.
You don’t have a “right” to arm yourself. In reality you only have will & the means, the rest is appeal to authority and law abiding rule following. I only respect the law to the degree it works for me & what I can get away with.
Basically we threw out Christianity (Catholic or Protestant traditions) and replaced it with relativism and therapy-speak. Makes sense why young people in the West are really struggling to make moral decisions.
I would argue that there are similarities between the problems Freya identifies and Protestant "traditions". This individualist, personal standards motif comes out of the sola
I agree with you but think Protestantism is way better than secular therapy beliefs that are turbocharged by the internet.
I wish all Christians were united in the Catholic Church but I can’t go back to Germany 500 years ago and stop the heretics.
The Pope is washing the feet of “migrants” and the Vatican is pushing to flood Western countries with invaders for “reasons”… you think it’s to cover up their 1000 year ongoing cult of pedophilia? Christianity is just communism 1.0. “We’re all equal in the eyes of god”. Who is “we”?
How about “Our people alone descend from the Gods and outsiders are unsuitable and inferior thus do not belong here. It is we who will colonize the stars, that is our manifest destiny & anyone in our way will be crushed.” -A way better morality
I can see that certainly. But have you read Alan Noble?
Meanwhile Orthodoxes carry on like nothing happened, lol.
I really enjoyed this. I love some of the observations you made. See, what I find interesting is that I actually do think your friends should tell you how to behave. Not judge you or dictate your actions, but rather check you. I think a lot of people have gotten really comfortable with the idea that they can be and do whatever they want around their people and that friends are "toxic" for pointing out your missteps.
But your friends, more than any others, are people you really get to choose, and I think a lot of what we see happen today is that because people are afraid to be brutally honest with themselves, it becomes near impossible to be held accountable by the people that love them most. There is a lot of merit in being told "Bro, I love you, but you've been acting like an ass lately and it's not okay". That kind of circle keeps the balances in check, the standards high and it especially means more because it is feedback from people who love you and know what yout best looks lime (which is another thing, love between friends should be unmitigated and unbiased, but that's a whole different post lol.).
I think these traits help contribute to developing a lot of faith in life because, to your point, it builds moral character. That doesn't have to be by religious standards, but I think society is going through a huge crisis of faith that it is trying to plug through surface "spiritual" practices that do not have the philosophical and moral depths that any practice is supposed to have. True faith is what allows you to trust in yourself during challenges and especially helps you to feel more decisive among those myriad choices life throws at you. Faith steadies the roots.
Loved this piece. Thanks for writing x
Yes,in traditional old villages people were kept in line by the never ending continual gossip of the neighbours. If it got oppressive you fled to a city where you starved or turned to crime and got hanged! But this never ending vigilance kept life at a tolerable level for everyone with a.few special occasions when people could let off steam. Christmas with feasting and the social order reversed and May Day Eve when all the young men and women of the village had to go into the woods and cut boughs of green leaves and hawthorn blossom to celebrate May Day with. I mean it takes all night to find those just right branches. All the oldsters knew what the young ones was probably doing in the woods on May Day night as they'd done it themselves back in their day but it wasnt an allowed everyday thing.
I guess I would argue that capitalism has bankrupted the moral direction of the United States. So little wonder that an entire generation raised under late-state capitalism and targeted endlessly as consumers has little moral direction.
Look at the phenomenon of boycotting a company rather than protesting the government for a policy change or greater regulation (there will eventually be a vast body of regulation for new media). We now look to companies, not government, to reflect our morals. But companies are economic units. They are driven by a profit incentive, not a moral one.
So we outsource our morals to the market, and wonder why we have no direction as a culture/people. We tell everyone to get MBAs and avoid the humanities. We, as a society, insist that the individual assume burdens once carried by the state, then wonder why everyone is stressed and anxious and struggling to get through life.
Too much individualism thanks to too much capitalism. Democracy is where morality lies, and that has eroded greatly over the past 50 years or so. Capitalism has turned women into economic units at the expense of the family (I’m not arguing that women shouldn’t work, but that middle class families should be able to live on a single full-time income in the world’s largest economy by far). It’s turned individuals into consumers and little mini-states at the expense of their well-being (turning children into consumers is especially disturbing!). Globalization has hollowed out culture and what remains is just the ashes of meaning, purpose, morality, empathy, and so on.
Both capitalism and democratic republics are good systems but they really depend on the morality of the individuals to function best. Morality used to be taught within families and intermediating institutions (churches, Boy Scouts, schools, etc.) it was within the framework of local communities and organizations that children grew to be civilized in the society at large. I think what Freya is suggesting is that such institutions—the family being the most basic—have abdicated this responsibility.
maybe because both parents are off working more than ever!
I agree with many of your points. But capitalism is not the problem—greedy, corrupt people are. Capitalism has done more to lift the world out of poverty than any other system. Look up the graphs of historian Johan Norberg. The information they contain is quite stunning.
Respectfully dissent.
>>>>>I guess I would argue that capitalism has bankrupted the moral direction of the United States<<<<<<
But the US stopped being a Capitalist Country in 1913
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/07/john-keller/a-laymans-look-at-the-communist-manifesto/
Capitalism is the ONLY MORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM
"In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html#:~:text=The%20moral%20justification%20of%20capitalism%20lies%20in%20the%20fact%20that,its%20ruling%20principle%20is%3A%20justice.
Sorry, the US has a market economy and pro-corporatist governance. This is a given in any policy circles, no matter what lofty hairs Ayn Rand split at one point.
The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, was clear that it was by pursuing their own self-interests that individuals would naturally benefit each other. This was the value that he attributed to the market — “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” That is the core economic principle of the free market.
Capitalism is about the individual and self-interest. Democracy is about the community and shared interest/social justice. We can show this empirically, as Benjamin Friedman did in his “Moral Consequences of Economic Growth” wherein he ties socially progressive policies to periods of economic expansion around the globe, and socially regressive policies to periods of retraction.
The US has been in a protracted period of late stage capitalism since at least the 1990s, (depending on how you define the term), but most obviously when it began to project this stage globally via globalization.
The same folks who tell us that they don’t know what a woman is and that Tampons MUST be placed in boys bathrooms , are telling us that there is NO DIFFERENCE between CAPITALISM and FASCISM .
Ain’t that some Shih-Tsu ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
On that note, we may increasingly move into a phase of state led capitalism, globally. But capitalism most certainly did not die at the beginning of the twentieth century.
STATE LED CAPITALISM IS FASCISM !!!!!!!
."The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."
Benito Mussolini
https://origin-rh.web.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
I mean this in terms of the global system of trade, not as one feature of a fascist regime at a national level.
There is no single actor (ie party) who rules the global political economy.
Capitalism means NO GOVERNMENT - NO COMPULSIONS EXIST .
lais·sez-faire
/ˌlesāˈfer/
Economics
abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.
"laissez-faire capitalism"
-- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"
Thomas Jefferson
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp
.
In his book, The Abolition of Man, Lewis was prophetic in pointing out that relativism—the idea that there are no absolute truths—would lead to the decay of morality and a lack of virtue within society. Without a belief in and the teaching of universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with intelligent men who behave like animals or as Lewis puts it, “Men without Chests.”
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/reflections-august-2012/
Kimberly!
That’s a powerful insight from Lewis on the consequences of relativism. Do you think there’s a way to reintroduce universal moral laws in a society that increasingly leans toward individualism and subjective truths, if ever?
However difficult it is for it to change, this society won't last forever, and instead like all societies hitherto will suffer dissolution. I think this society is unchangeable in that regard, and will likely become more fractured, subjective, and detached from reality.
If you look to the ancient literature, whether it is to these cycles of societal life-and-death in the Eddas, or to Plato's time of similar moral decay, or if you look to more modern authors who first observed the biological nature of senescence of societies (e.g Spengler), or actually just at nature itself, death is a part of life and there is always a seed that grows from the ruins and decay.
The moral values that revive today will blossom into the society that replaces this one, likely helping to form the parallel institutions that will replace this one's own as well. History is cyclical, good rises from good and evil from evil. So, it doesn't really matter if this society can be changed, universal moral laws lead somewhere positive regardless.
There will be blood. Sadly.
Such a great question! I wish I knew. But I can speak from the perspective of a Christian. The changes we speak of come from the inside. A changed heart. A reorientation of love, affection, devotion, meaning, and purpose. And this comes from a relationship with our Creator. While every other religion is concerned with following a set of rules, Christianity starts with a relationship and then our lives (should!) begin to be a reflection of love and gratitude. We love because he first loved us. Conversion cannot come about by the sword, legislation, or coercion. It is truly something supernatural.
Even though I don’t believe America is or ever was a “Christian nation,” I do think we experienced benefits from Christian influence. I haven’t read this yet, but I know Tom Holland’s book “Dominion” discusses how the values of Western civilization are rooted in Christianity (and he’s not a Christian). I tend to think this influence can’t be recovered.
What do you think?
Kimberly, I really appreciate your perspective on how true change starts from within, through a reoriented heart and relationship with the Creator. It’s fascinating how Christianity's influence on Western values, as you mentioned with Tom Holland's book, has left a deep imprint, even if many people today don't consciously recognize it.
I wonder if part of the challenge in reintroducing universal moral laws stems from our increasingly pluralistic society. With so many worldviews and belief systems, do you think it’s possible for a common moral foundation to emerge without being tied to a specific religious tradition? Can the shared values that shaped Western civilization still resonate in a way that feels inclusive to all?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
I admire your curiosity and question asking. Most people, like me, mostly come on here to express our opinions! You’re so right that pluralism is an obstacle to a common moral foundation. I think we’re seeing this starting to play out in Europe. The US has built-in mechanisms for the flourishing of a pluralistic society, but even those are experiencing strains as threats to basic principles like free speech are becoming more common. Can we go back to the common values that shaped western civilization in the first place? I don’t know. I don’t think so.
Again, I have to put on my Christian hat here…it is the church’s job (and I mean the global church, not a specific denomination or building, but the body of believers) to be a light to those around them (have we done that well? Sometimes. But that’s a whole other topic!). We are to serve and love others wherever we find ourselves—in a pluralistic society, a hostile society, or a flourishing society. We are supposed to work for the good of the city in which we live, but we also have an eternal perspective, knowing that this life is brief. A lot of American Christians have too closely intertwined politics and faith. We’ve lived so long in a culturally Christian nation that we’ve forgotten what it’s like to live out our faith in a pluralistic society.
Your questions framed the topic from an angle I hadn’t much thought about, so thank you. What are your thoughts?
In expressing opinions, people steer further away from empathy. I seek to understand, not to judge. I appreciate our conversation thus far, and I have no more thoughts.
Thank you, Kimberly 🧡
The difficulty is that if we do get to reintroduce the society we all know we want,well there is a personal price to pay and a lot of people will hurt a lot,but they'll be a hell of a lot more creative. And that's how life is.
We may never know what these absolute truths are. Just believing they exist is not enough and is counter productive if your virtues are actually vices. What happens when your compassion is really just cowardice? How would you know?
Virtues are relative in regard to circumstance. Sometimes being cruel & selfish are better virtues than being compassionate & generous.
One needs “first principles”, ideals, & goals not “absolute truth” or “morals”.
Beauty is the highest ideal. There is no greater accomplishment for a European woman than raising beautiful children. They need not ever adopt an African orphan. That is ugliness, that is sin.
I would reject any worldview that would call cruelty and selfishness better virtues than compassion and selflessness.
And whenever you call one set of virtues “better” than another, as you did, you are appealing to a higher, transcendent standard.
I’m a bit alarmed at your comment that a European woman adopting an African orphan is ugliness and sin. Furthermore, you are again appealing to a higher standard by calling something sin. I believe adoption to be noble. On what grounds do you say otherwise?
Oh, One other thing, any white woman adopting an African orphan & raising them trans, yea that’s an example of bad selfishness, in psychology we call it narcissistic personality disorder.
I used sin as a joke. If anything is a sin it’s treason against your own heritage & tribe. “Not my people not my problem” is the common sense standard by which I judge such a situation.
We live in a brainwashed culture where White women are being indoctrinated to socially signal their “moral goodness” by raising their child trans or adopting African children often doing both at the same time. You cannot save the world but you can help your own people. Everything is inverted.
Cruelty is necessary for fighting enemies that would rape and murder you & your children. It is necessary for punishment of criminal behavior & for the removal of parasitic types. Selfishness is necessary for taking one’s own side in life, to follow one’s dreams, and make something of themselves. We evolved these traits to help us survive, to thrive. It’s a known fact that greed can produce more benefit to others than charity. Of course you donate to charity because it makes you feel good & moral. Well, those feelings are selfish at some level, surprise! These taboo virtues are healthy adaptive instincts when applied appropriately. These virtues are necessary at certain times, other times they are not, realizing which instincts & virtues to embrace is an issue of maturity & wisdom. The “higher standard” is simply the most appropriate action. Slam on the breaks vs speed up, are two opposing actions that can both lead avoiding a car wreck. In this case avoiding the wreck is the higher standard, why avoid a wreck? Why tend to a crying baby if the sun will burn out in 5 billion years? Only a nihilist would worry about “transcendence” when acting on healthy instincts.
Most people are so confused by modern “morality” they are now letting RAPISTS and PEDOPHILES out of jail in the name of “compassion”, “justice”, & “equality”. They should be hung publicly to send a message to others who would dare act the same. Anyone not cruel enough to hang a child rapist is part of the problem.
If you’re looking for a highest virtue it’s the instinct for beauty. That is where all other virtues deviate, fundamentally.
Raise your own children to be beautiful. If you must adopt choose children that look like you so that they grow up identifying with their adoptive parents in a tribe that looks like them that shares their heritage, language, & general history. Help someone in your community someone who you know face to face.
If Africans are so “equal” to you then there are 1.5 billion of them who can adapt their nearest orphan. To think American White women should adopt African children, ripping them from their native lands is a kind of White Supremacy + human trafficking.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions as the saying goes. Truly good people know the difference between us and them.
Can I interject re your comment I agree that a healthy selfishness is a virtue and "compassion " can be and in fact is,weaponised now,and it's being used as a weapon to destroy us and by extension our society.
Another important reflection, Freya. It's coming into focus now. As L'Engle said, "just because we don't understand doesn't mean that the explanation doesn't exist."
Which morals to adopt? Is it enough to be rooted in a good ethical code, or will we still find ourselves adrift, searching for something more? In addition to L'Engle, Chesterton wrote eloquently on this topic. And CS Lewis. And Solzhenitsyn.
Very well said! We definitely seem to have lost some appreciation for values. I hope it's temporary. I've seen some signs in young people that give me hope. We had a couple generations or so that went nuts about "rights" and "feelings" and "happiness" and "expression" while ignoring the values that underpin all these things.
A lot of young people now I notice have high standards probably from seeing the disastrous lives of older relatives
I joined therapy looking for that compass you talked about and just ended up more confused and anxious than I was before. I even started to feel ashamed for seeking a compass outside of myself. You shed light on the thing I have been feeling for a long time. Thank you for this piece.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience with therapy, Valerie. I think such an important thing to feel into when seeing any practitioner is if they are helping you remember that the answers lie within you, rather than acting like the “expert” on your life, or even if we ourselves go into therapy believing that the therapist should have the answers for us.
There are some really wonderful therapists and other practitioners doing really great work to support people back to themselves…there are also really awful practitioners who unknowingly (and knowingly) perpetuate unhealthy cycles of disconnection.
Virtue is not cool. Preaching, moralizing, etc., is a "downer," and all the attention algorithms know it.
But there are exceptions that suggest there's a way forward. I think about Jocko Willink, for example — i.e. "Discipline is freedom" and "extreme ownership." Willink's one person who points us to an alternative perspective, one that's not about shortcuts and silver bullets. Instead, Willink points to the importance of taking responsibility over your life.
And I, for one, think that's pretty cool. Responsibility starts with the self. You gotta take the reins of your life, take responsibility for your actions. Your health. Your wealth. Your family. All of this is hard work, and the rewards are far from instant.
But wow are those rewards worth it! I hope in my life that I make responsible choices. Personal responsibility is a boundary worth setting.
I don't disagree, but let me play the devil's advocate here.
If someone endorses responsibility, discipline, and ownership of one's action, does that also imply the substantive framework or endpoint of such commitments? Couldn't someone pledge responsibility to their own hedonic goals, or ownership over their own (constantly shifting) boundaries?
It seems there s a potential regress if the substance of the commitments remains implicit. I know Jocko Willink has a substantive commitment but does that lead to the algorithm rejecting him? (The TikTok algorithm described in the article, not the algorithm supporting JW's own popularity.)
It is the mother of all ironies that Jocko has branded himself as a representative of "extreme ownership". He made a career of being a slavish mercenary to the US government, committing uncountable, unthinkable atrocities from which his soul will never recover, on the flimsiest of moral pretexts. He is the extreme example of what a large, faceless, globalist entity can turn someone with a confused moral compass into. Feeling lost? Here's a gun and some guys and a bunch of cool toys. Go fight wars for bankers and lose your soul. What a chump.
If you want to push yourself then start a family. It is the most obvious thing that people are lacking in their lives, and it is the obvious outlet for the rampant anxiety which is so obviously caused by people having nothing meaningful to do with themselves except stare in the mirror. Yes, if you are bored, you will become anxious and feel like you're climbing the walls. You were *designed* to have more than enough energy to give to others, specifically to your children.
This was not a mystery to our ancestors. It is not something that merited walls of navel-gazing digital text to elucidate. Once you were old enough you carried the torch forward and created the next generation. Simple as. You work through your issues by having to become stable for an innocent being, a being who is utterly dependent on you for their survival. Yes, it is hard. Yes, you will struggle. Yes, your child will show you what you're made of,. That *is* the point. Nature designed child-rearing to bring out the best in you and make you a better, more *whole* person.
And if you're reading this and feeling triggered, rest assured that your ancestors are watching you from somewhere. What are you going to do, make them proud? Or make them feel like all their hard work was for nothing? The choice is 100%, without question, YOURS to either get right or to screw up.
Not going to defend Jocko for being the strong arm of the State through the military — something I am not advocating for. At a time where nihilism is everywhere, I get the appeal of belief that your country offers, but I think you point to a better place to focus responsibility:
Family, community, and building for the long-term future. The only caveat is that I think you need to find work you believe in — that work can be in many places, from your kids to your hobbies to how you get a paycheck. It's important (to me) to find ways to exert power over the world in a positive way, and I think doing that in your life as an adult is also a critical message that your kids receive.
Comes back to taking responsibility over your life, regardless of who is sending that message.
This is so good, Freya. As a therapist the amount of times I’ve asked my clients about their moral values-what guides them- and gotten blank stares back 👀. I haven’t been able to truly articulate the importance of moral values to support anxiety…thank you for giving me the words.
The elephant in the room is the question: which moral framework do we adopt? How can we have an objective moral law without an objective lawgiver?
CS Lewis has written eloquently about this in Mere Christianity:
“The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.”
I think Freya is admitting here, or at least alluding to, a Real Right or a Real Morality. But where does it come from and how do we know it? And what happens when we don’t follow it?
CS Lewis:
“When an individual states that one value system is better than another, or attempts to replace a particular value system with a better one, he assumes there is an objective standard of judgment. This objective standard of judgment, which is different from either value system, helps one conclude that one value system conforms more closely to the moral standard than another. Without some sort of objective measuring stick for value systems, there is no way to conclude that civilized morality, where humans treat one another with dignity and respect, is better than savage morality, where humans brutally murder others, even within their own tribe at times, for various reasons.
“…if there is no objective moral standard, then there is no sense in saying that any one value system has ever been morally good or morally bad, or morally superior or inferior to other value systems.”
I believe, and CS Lewis eventually argues, that in order for a moral framework to exist outside of ourselves, there needs to be a transcendent moral lawgiver. And what makes the most sense here is a transcendent god, and more specifically the Christian God. He provided the law but he also provided a way for forgiveness when we break the law.
“…if there is no objective moral standard, then there is no sense in saying that any one value system has ever been morally good or morally bad, or morally superior or inferior to other value systems.”
My morality is superior because it is mine, and that is sufficient.
Freya, thank you for your insightful reflections. As I read your essay, what came to me was a call to leadership. Having a moral compass is vital. And developing one's leadership to move toward the vision we hold that aligns with our morals is the "work." I believe personal leadership is the embodiment of our morals, boundaries, desires, visions, beliefs and the willingness to share that within our communities to guide others to step into their leadership. It's no longer something saved for those in positions of power. It's a requirement for all of us as we continue moving into a time of great unknown. Thank you for modeling this through your own journey.
Excellent article, Freya.
I always tried to follow a moral code that my parents instilled in me which is to treat others as I wish them to treat me. I in turn passed on that moral view to my (now adult) daughters.
Of course, I would not do things I believed were wrong no matter who told me to and my daughters certainly behave that way, too, but the main thing about it is that it always considers the other person's point of view as more important than one's own.
Obviously, this does not go so far as accepting abuse! That gets thrown out at stage 1 : I do not want to be treated that way so I don't accept it from others.
It's not a perfect solution but it takes one a lot of the way, I think.
I know you say God is a ridiculous answer to our morality crisis, but your desperate words show it might be a good answer for you. Want something permanent? The Bible says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." While the world constantly change the definition of love, Jesus never will. While the world will tell you that honor and redemption comes from endless virtue signalling, The Bible says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Jesus doesn't demand our perfection, or the nihilism-disguised- as -strength that infects social media. He accepts us as we are--our mistakes, our tears, and our vulnerabilities. All that He asks of us is to quit relying on our own ability to find morality, and rely on His abilities instead. Please consider exploring the Bible itself, and not just what the secular world says about it. As you've said so perfectly in this piece, it's not working for us anyway.
But if you want a source that deals with the strong woman cult specifically, I would recommend The Heroine's Journey by Maureen Murdock. I used it for my senior thesis, and it offers us girls a much better way of embracing our feminine identity than the world does. Maureen even claims that our idea of emotionless strong women actually plays right into the patriarchy's hands--because it's demanding us to sacrifice our feminine strengths in order to be more like men. It's absolutely fantastic!
Read more of Ms. India’s writing and you get the sense that she’s actually already converted. She just doesn’t write about it since, as said in this essay, it makes you terminally uncool and laughed at, and for someone in the business of online writing/influencing for the nonreligious “tribe” that’s a problem.
But she’s all but saying “humans need religion” in almost all her writing over the last six months. Even when she explicitly disavows religion as the only path to morality, the disavowal is done very timidly and without much to back it up (need an externally-imposed moral code — without religion where does that moral code come from?). Plus, the pattern of her likes/restacks on SS reinforces my suspicion.